Machado, before she won the prize, called for the violent overthrow of the Chavinistas on multiple occasions & promised to hand some of the governance of her country over to corporations. Additionally, she promised to install a regime that would be resistant or immune to leftist wins in elections undercutting the very reason she was given the prize.
Whatever axe you have to grind with the forum you’re using is irrelevant if you can’t articulate an argument.
The Obama prize can be viewed as an aspirational prize: rewarding rhetoric that was a drastic change from the typical US hawkish rhetoric and policy that had been increasing since Reagan. They ultimately got it wrong…very very wrong…but at least it was based on something.
Kissinger, on the other hand, was tantamount to a war criminal and everybody knew it.
Giving it to Machado just tells us that the prize is fully corrupted, considering her violent rhetoric. Not just that - but the notion that she was promoting democracy is laughable, given her statements about installing a regime that would be resistant or immune to leftist political victories.
She’s just dumb if she believed that Trump was going to expend resources and install her as the President. Trump, in a rare moment of accuracy, correctly assessed that installing her would cause unrest…maybe even a war. He much prefers bribing and blackmailing the corrupt entities within the “leftist” system.
Comparing the innate misogyny of most porn to being right handed isn’t appropriate. That sort of analogy, comparing something harmful to something benign, is the core of the problem - it serves to normalize misogyny.
We don’t need to go beyond the topic to illustrate misogyny and harm. For example, a porn store or site displaying simulated violence or underage scenarios to sell it products would be more appropriate. Prioritizing those categories is similar to prioritizing misogynistic lesbian porn over ethical lesbian porn, for example.
You don’t need to be dramatic and label an appropriate assessment of the misogyny of lesbian porn as “all men are evil”.
You must intentionally ignore how and why so-called “lesbian” porn is misogynistic. The baseline of the vast majority of lesbian porn doesn’t engage with how lesbians actually behave, for example, but rather it projects what male viewers want to see - typically with one or both actors behaving as a stereotypical man would.
They’re tripling down on Trumps “antifa terrorist” schtick: they’re stringing together anything they can that might make it appear (to the faithful) that these women are part of a terrorist network that targets ICE officers - and conservatives in general.
It’s bullshit. It pains loose associations and vibes as well organized groups and rigid ideologies.
Yes. Chainsaws are very safe…if you get a newer chainsaw you basically have to intentionally injure yourself with it.
Seems like this is a pointless argument about potentially dangerous vs statistically dangerous.
I’ll concede that you’re paid well because all the training you receive to make your dangerous job safe puts a premium on labour in your sector. Better?
I’m trying to stick to your original question, though: the most (statistically) dangerous jobs under capitalism aren’t very well paid - relatively (like resource extraction), and under communism all jobs aren’t paid the same.
Oh…the Canadian system is absolutely not funded as well as the Nordic countries, for example…and it’s getting worse as transfer payments continue to be cut, and as provinces don’t spend those payments on health.
The issue isn’t the aging population so much as what I said above: governments keep using healthcare to balance budgets because it’s such a big line item and it’s low hanging fruit they can use to show fiscal “success”. It would be easy to just fund our system…and that, in turn, would make our lives cheaper.
But fiscally “conservative” governments like to perpetuate the myth that our system has poor outcomes and paying out of pocket is preferable…so rich people can benefit from their wealth - health wise. It’s sad to watch it erode.
His job is potentially dangerous, not statistically dangerous. It’s statistically very safe. We don’t call air travel less safe because you might die more often when there’s an accident…the analogy holds here.
It’s beside the point because the most dangerous jobs aren’t well paid under capitalism, and you misunderstand communism if you believe that all jobs pay the same.
There’s about a 106% chance that Trump is going to use one “war” or another to try to avoid any future election.